Re: [office] 5.3.1 Note Element

[Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@sun.com>]

Patrick,

Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> 5.3.1 Note Element (second paragraph) reads:
> 
>> Open Office XML represents notes in a similar fashion to footnotes in
>> XSL. In XSL, the first child of the note element contains the citation
>> in the form of an <fo:inline> element. Open Office XML uses the same
>> structure but introduces a <text:note-citation> element. The second
>> child contains the note body, just as in XSL.
> 
> 
> Confused when I first read this paragraph. Since XSL divided into XSLT 
> and XSL:FO, would it be clearer to substitute XSL:FO? Granted that I 
> think the language is technically correct, just not sure that it won't 
> cause confusion.

I agree that it is a little but confusing that the former XSL has been 
divided into XSLT and XSL-FO first, and XSL-FO has been renamed to XSL 
later. However, the current specification is called "XSL" and FO or 
"formatting objects" even does not appear in its title. So, from my 
point of view, it might also be confusing to use XSL-FO for people that 
don't know the history of XSL. So "XSL" seems to be the correct term, 
even if it might be confusing.

Anyway, the sepcifiaction sometimes refered to XSL (FO) as XSL, and 
sometimes as XSL-FO, and the bibliography entry was called [xsl-fo], 
too. This in fact is confusing and inconsistent. For reason, I've 
renamed the the bibliography entry to [XSL] and the term "XSL-FO" to 
"XSL". Whenever "XSL" occured first in a section, I've replaced it with 
the bibliography entry "[XSL]", so that it becomes clear that we are 
refering to XSL and not to XSLT at least after heaving a look at the 
bibliography index.

At the same time I've found to places there we refered to XSLT as XSL: 
One was in section 6.7.8 were we refer to XSLT number formats, the other 
  in section 14 were had "CSS or XSL stylesheets".

Does that work for you?

Michael